27 ms·

Is there any source that has a bunch of the claims and refutations to it? Just saying fraud doesn't exist doesn't help calm the outrage of those who believe it

Is there any source that has a bunch of the claims and refutations to it? Just saying fraud doesn't exist doesn't help calm the outrage of those who believe it was stolen. Also based on how partisan the impeachment was it is likely people don't trust the government to have any sense of accuracy and merely attribute it to partisan lines. The strategy of acknowledging what someone says and then responding to it often calms down difficult interpersonal conflicts. I think the same applies here. We understand you believe "A", we do not believe that because of proof "B". Instead the approach taken is largely ad hominem's which only escalate things further.

TehCorwiz 6y ago
Two things: 1) You can't reason yourself out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into. They don't care that the data is bad, they care that it supports their worldview. 2) The folowing remains true now as it did more than 70 years ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
jmull 6y ago
They’re out there if you want to search for them. I went through three or four of the statistical analyses that purported to show the election results were practically impossible. They were trivially junk. E.g. one compared the voting rate in 2020 and 2016 but used votes to registered voters in 2020 but votes to eligible voters in 2016. The others were similarly laughable, but no body cared when I posted this. Others says it better than I can, but the people who believe this stuff believe it because they want to, not because it makes sense. Facts and reason didn’t get them to this point and facts and reason isn’t going to pull them back.
- karmelapple 6y ago
  Have any links handy?
  - jmull 6y ago
    They’re out there if you want to search for them.
    - karmelapple 6y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but that's the reason I asked: I have tried searching, and it's not easy to find comprehensive debunking of these things. Heck, it's difficult to even find the original court documentation for many cases. I find news articles, but I want the source material, so that I can talk about it to others without any reporters coloring the court cases, especially as I talk about these court cases with other people who think there is loads of legitimate evidence. So... if you can help me search for it, or find it, I would really appreciate it.

TehCorwiz 6y ago

Two things: 1) You can't reason yourself out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into. They don't care that the data is bad, they care that it supports their worldview. 2) The folowing remains true now as it did more than 70 years ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

jmull 6y ago

They’re out there if you want to search for them. I went through three or four of the statistical analyses that purported to show the election results were practically impossible. They were trivially junk. E.g. one compared the voting rate in 2020 and 2016 but used votes to registered voters in 2020 but votes to eligible voters in 2016. The others were similarly laughable, but no body cared when I posted this. Others says it better than I can, but the people who believe this stuff believe it because they want to, not because it makes sense. Facts and reason didn’t get them to this point and facts and reason isn’t going to pull them back.

karmelapple 6y ago
Have any links handy?
- jmull 6y ago
  They’re out there if you want to search for them.
  - karmelapple 6y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but that's the reason I asked: I have tried searching, and it's not easy to find comprehensive debunking of these things. Heck, it's difficult to even find the original court documentation for many cases. I find news articles, but I want the source material, so that I can talk about it to others without any reporters coloring the court cases, especially as I talk about these court cases with other people who think there is loads of legitimate evidence. So... if you can help me search for it, or find it, I would really appreciate it.